Posted on 07/15/2020 10:47:27 AM PDT by ebb tide
July 15, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) Today, more than 50 priests, scholars, journalists, and other persons of prominence published an Open Letter to Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò and Bishop Athanasius Schneider, thanking these two prelates for their recent statements in which they discuss some problems of the Second Vatican Council's documents that might need a further evaluation and correction.
The signatories of this letter regard this discourse about the Council and its aftermath to be of crucial importance for the good of the Church.
Among them are prominently the Italian church historian Professor Roberto de Mattei, the U.S. Fox News Senior Judicial Analyst and professor of law, Andrew P. Napolitano, as well as his fellow law professors Brian McCall and Paolo Pasqualucci, well-known Catholic book authors such as Dr. Peter Kwasniewski, Jose Antonio Ureta, Henry Sire, and Dr. Taylor Marshall, the retired Oxford Research Fellow Father John Hunwicke, numerous other priests, as well as journalists such as Marco Tosatti, Aldo Maria Valli, Jeanne Smits, and John-Henry Westen.
The letter (see full text below) is being published simultaneously in English, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, Dutch, and French.
The undersigned express their gratitude to Archbishop Viganò and Bishop Schneider for calling for an open and honest debate about the truth of what happened at Vatican II and whether the Council and its implementation contain errors or aspects that favor errors or harm the Faith. They notice that these two prelates also have their own disagreements about aspects of this discourse, saying that Archbishop Viganò has argued it would be better to altogether 'forget' the Council, while Bishop Schneider, disagreeing with him on this specific point, proposes officially to correct only those parts of the Council documents that contain errors or that are ambiguous. But these disagreements are presented in a charitable and kindly manner.
The signatories state:
Your courteous and respectful exchange of opinions should serve as a model for the more robust debate that you and we desire. Too often these past fifty years disagreements about Vatican II have been challenged by mere ad hominem attacks rather than calm argumentation. We urge all who will join this debate to follow your example.
The Open Letter thanks these two prelates for identifying some of the crucial aspects of the Second Vatican Council that deserve an examination, adding that such a discourse could provide a model for frank, yet courteous, debate that can involve disagreement. The signatories point out that they themselves might not agree with each and every point raised by Archbishop Viganò and Bishop Schneider.
The Open Letter then lists the key points of criticism as raised by these two prelates in the recent weeks with regard to the Council under the following headlines: Religious Liberty for All Religions as a Natural Right Willed by God; the Identity of the Church of Christ with the Catholic Church and the New Ecumenism; Papal Primacy and the New Collegiality; and The Council and Its Texts are the Cause of Many Current Scandals and Errors.
In these sections, quotations from the two prelates are presented, thus summing up their arguments and objections. For example, in the last section, both prelates are drawing parallels between some statements of the Council and documents issued by Pope Francis, thus pointing to the Council and its novel teachings as the root cause of our current crisis in the Church.
Archbishop Vigano recently wrote:
If the pachamama could be adored in a church, we owe it to Dignitatis Humanae. If we have a liturgy that is Protestantized and at times even paganized, we owe it to the revolutionary action of Msgr. Annibale Bugnini and to the post-conciliar reforms. If the Abu Dhabi Declaration was signed, we owe it to Nostra Aetate. If we have come to the point of delegating decisions to the Bishops Conferences even in grave violation of the Concordat, as happened in Italy we owe it to collegiality, and to its updated version, synodality. Thanks to synodality, we found ourselves with Amoris Laetitia having to look for a way to prevent what was obvious to everyone from appearing: that this document, prepared by an impressive organizational machine, intended to legitimize Communion for the divorced and cohabiting, just as Querida Amazonia will be used to legitimize women priests (as in the recent case of an episcopal vicaress in Freiburg) and the abolition of Sacred Celibacy.
And in a similar vein, Bishop Schneider stated:
For anyone who is intellectually honest, and is not seeking to square the circle, it is clear that the assertion made in Dignitatis Humanae, according to which every man has the right based on his own nature (and therefore positively willed by God) to practice and spread a religion according to his own conscience, does not differ substantially from the statement in the Abu Dhabi Declaration, which says: The pluralism and the diversity of religions, color, sex, race and language are willed by God in His wisdom, through which He created human beings. This divine wisdom is the source from which the right to freedom of belief and the freedom to be different derives.
Let us recapitulate here the short history of this new discourse on the Council and its aftermath.
It started with two texts published by Bishop Schneider, in which he responded to a lengthy interpretative essay by Cardinal Gerhard Müller trying to read the controversial February 4, 2019 Abu Dhabi document in an orthodox light, and thereby also positively referring back to some Council documents.
Schneider stated on June 1 that the Abu Dhabi document is wrong in declaring that the diversity of religions is willed by God. In his second article, the Kazakh prelate of German origin also disagreed with the claim that Catholics and Muslims believe in the same God, a claim which is an underlying assumption of the Abu Dhabi document.
Archbishop Viganò gratefully and approvingly responded to this debate about Vatican II in a June 9 intervention, adding a June 15 statement about some of the problematic propositions that can be found in Vatican II documents. In this document, he also stated that it would be better if this Council were to be forgotten. He then answered interview questions from the Catholic commentator and book author Phil Lawler concerning the history and background of the turbulent Second Vatican Council and the signs that it had been manipulated by a small group of modernists, on June 26.
In a response to LifeSite's editor-in-chief, John-Henry Westen, Archbishop Viganò clarified his earlier words that he thinks this Council should better be forgotten, by saying that he considers this Council to be valid, but manipulated.
Finally, on July 6, this Italian prelate responded to a critique by the Italian journalist Sandro Magister who claimed that he was on the brink of schism. I have no desire to separate myself from Mother Church, Viganò then wrote.
The signatories of this Open Letter to Archbishop Viganò and Bishop Schneider welcome this reflection and discourse concerning the Second Vatican Council and its aftermath. One may trust that when people of good will together consider these matters of great importance for the life of the Church even if they disagree at times the truth surely will be promoted, in charity.
***
Please see here the Open Letter, signed by over 50 priests, scholars, journalists, and other persons of prominence:
Open Letter to Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò and Bishop Athanasius Schneider
July 9, 2020
Your Excellencies:
We the undersigned wish to express our sincere gratitude for your fortitude and care for souls during the ongoing crisis of Faith in the Catholic Church. Your public statements calling for an honest and open discussion of the Second Vatican Council and the dramatic changes in Catholic belief and practice that followed it have been a source of hope and consolation to many faithful Catholics. The event of the Second Vatican Council appears now more than fifty years after its completion to be unique in the history of the Church. Never before our time has an ecumenical council been followed by such a prolonged period of confusion, corruption, loss of faith, and humiliation for the Church of Christ.
Catholicism has distinguished itself from some false religions by its insistence that Man is a rational creature and that religious belief encourages rather than suppresses critical reflection by Catholics. Many, including the current Holy Father, appear to place the Second Vatican Counciland its texts, acts, and implementationbeyond the reach of critical analysis and debate. To concerns and objections raised by Catholics of good will, the Council has been held up by some as a super-council, (1) the invocation of which ends rather than fosters debate. Your call to trace the current crisis in the Church to its roots and to call for action to correct any turn taken at Vatican II that is now seen to have been a mistake exemplify the fulfillment of the episcopal office to hand on the Faith as the Church has received it.
We are grateful for your calls for an open and honest debate about the truth of what happened at Vatican II and whether the Council and its implementation contain errors or aspects that favor errors or harm the Faith. Such a debate cannot start from a conclusion that the Second Vatican Council as a whole and in its parts is per se in continuity with Tradition. Such a pre-condition to a debate prevents critical analysis and argument and only permits the presentation of evidence that supports the conclusion already announced. Whether or not Vatican II can be reconciled with Tradition is the question to be debated, not a posited premise blindly to be followed even if it turns out to be contrary to reason. The continuity of Vatican II with Tradition is a hypothesis to be tested and debated, not an incontrovertible fact. For too many decades the Church has seen too few shepherds permit, let alone encourage, such a debate.
Eleven years ago, Msgr. Brunero Gherardini had already made a filial request to Pope Benedict XVI: The idea (which I dare now to submit to Your Holiness) has been in my mind for a long time. It is that a grandiose and if possible final clarification of the last council be given concerning each of its aspects and contents. Indeed, it would seem logical, and it seems urgent to me, that these aspects and contents be studied in themselves and in the context of all the others, with a close examination of all the sources, and from the specific viewpoint of continuity with the preceding Churchs Magisterium, both solemn and ordinary. On the basis of a scientific and critical workas vast and irreproachable as possiblein comparison with the traditional Magisterium of the Church, it will then be possible to draw matter for a sure and objective evaluation of Vatican II. (2)
We also are grateful for your initiative in identifying some of the most important doctrinal topics that must be addressed in such a critical examination and for providing a model for frank, yet courteous, debate that can involve disagreement. We have collected from your recent interventions some examples of the topics you have indicated must be addressed and, if found lacking, corrected. This collection we hope will serve as a basis for further detailed discussion and debate. We do not claim this list to be exclusive, perfect, or complete. We also do not all necessarily agree with the precise nature of each of the critiques quoted below nor on the answer to the questions you raise, yet we are united in the belief that your questions deserve honest answers and not mere dismissals with ad hominem claims of disobedience or breaking with communion. If what each of you claims is untrue, let interlocutors prove it; if not, the hierarchy should give credence to your claims.
Religious Liberty for All Religions as a Natural Right Willed by God
The Identity of the Church of Christ with the Catholic Church and the New Ecumenism
Papal Primacy and the New Collegiality
The Council and Its Texts are the Cause of Many Current Scandals and Errors
We have taken note of the differences you have highlighted between the solutions each of you has proposed for responding to the crisis precipitated at and following the Second Vatican Council. For example, Archbishop Viganò has argued it would be better to altogether forget the Council, while Bishop Schneider, disagreeing with him on this specific point, proposes officially to correct only those parts of the Council documents that contain errors or that are ambiguous. Your courteous and respectful exchange of opinions should serve as a model for the more robust debate that you and we desire. Too often these past fifty years disagreements about Vatican II have been challenged by mere ad hominem attacks rather than calm argumentation. We urge all who will join this debate to follow your example.
We pray that Our Blessed Mother, St. Peter the Prince of the Apostles, St. Athanasius, and St. Thomas Aquinas protect and preserve your Excellencies. May they reward you for your faithfulness to the Church and confirm you in your defense of the Faith and of the Church.
In Christo Rege, (signed)
Names added July 15
Other priests and scholars interested in signing this Open Letter may contact Openlettercouncil@gmail.com. Other people interested in supporting this Open Letter can sign a petition here.
___________
1. Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger 13 July 1988, in Santiago, Chile.
2. Concilio Vaticano II: Un discorso da fare (Frigento: Casa Maria Editrice, 2009), subsequently published in English as The Ecumenical Vatican Council II: A Much Needed Discussion. The excerpt here is taken from https://fsspx.news/en/vatican-ii-council-much-needed-discussion.
3. https://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/articles/item/4949-55-years-later-bishop-athanasius-schneider-s-appraisal-of-vatican-ii
4. https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/bishop-schneider-how-church-could-correct-erroneous-view-that-god-wills-diversity-of-religions
5. https://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/articles/item/4949-55-years-later-bishop-athanasius-schneider-s-appraisal-of-vatican-ii
6. https://www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/bishop-schneider-catholics-and-muslims-share-no-common-faith-in-god-no-common-adoration
7. https://www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/abp-Viganò-on-the-roots-of-deviation-of-vatican-ii-and-how-francis-was-chosen-to-revolutionize-the-church
8. https://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/articles/item/4949-55-years-later-bishop-athanasius-schneider-s-appraisal-of-vatican-ii
9. https://www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/abp-vigano-on-the-roots-of-deviation-of-vatican-ii-and-how-francis-was-chosen-to-revolutionize-the-church
10. https://www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/abp-vigano-on-the-roots-of-deviation-of-vatican-ii-and-how-francis-was-chosen-to-revolutionize-the-church
11. https://catholicfamilynews.com/blog/2020/06/26/archbishop-vigano-to-phil-lawler-council-fathers-were-the-object-of-a-sensational-deception/
12. https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/bishop-schneider-how-church-could-correct-erroneous-view-that-god-wills-diversity-of-religions
Ping
bump to read later
The battle of the letters continues. Very helpful...!?
I believe so. I think JPII and Solidarity aligning with Reagan/Thatcher proved to be a pretty effective team. Vigano and Trump could be a pretty good team too.
Battle?
It looks to me more like a polite dialogue between two churchmen, both of whom have problems with Dignitatis Humanae.
Marchmain, do you also consider Dignatis Humanae to be "very important" as you do the heretical Nostra Aetate?
M. Voris hardest hit....... What the hey.......
I don’t understand your post.
I don’t see Voris as a signee. Are you surprised at that?
Yes, and neither of those two documents will ever be “revoked” or “corrected”
You'll make a good Francis deaconette, Marchmain.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.